Where do slavs come from?

[Dr. A. Cula]

Originally posted by Heresson


Nah, Romanians are NOT remains of Romans from this area. They are immigrants from the southern bank of the Danube,.

You know, in some parts of Romania, these words would generate angry lynch mobs faster than you can say them.

However, the "south of Danube" theory contains the best explanation I've seen for the presence in the romanian language of latin words that evolved in the Empire centuries after the roman administration retreated from Dacia: romanians got them while living south of the river. It also satisfactorily explains why there are so few dacian words in the modern romanian dictionary. On the other hand, this theory fails to explain what drove some of my ancestors (i'm "only" 7/8 romanian) to leave the relative safety of the Roman Empire and settle in what was essentially a barbarian playing ground. That requires the kind of courage that I fail to recognize in modern romanians. There's also the problem of moving across a river thought to be unpassable in those times enough people to populate a territory that more or less coincides with modern Romania: other migratory tribes that passed through here moved their entire nation at once and could only occupy a small fraction of this territory. Even if romanians moved north in waves, it still was an impressive feat.

The "north of Danube" theory, the one that is now taught in romanian schools, states that romanians evolved in the territory of modern Romania and used to hide in the hills/mountains when there was trouble. This seems more in line with the general attitude of modern romanians and is based on later records of the usual method of fighting the turks: run to the hills, leaving nothing but scorched earth behind. The rest of the procedure is for another topic.

The latter theory also fails to explain the lack of dacian words in romanian, which seems to be explained by the former. However, both theories are in uncharted waters here: as far as I know, no one has any idea how exactly is the dacian language sounds, as there are no inscriptions in a dacian language or aphabet - few inscriptions have survived from the times of the dacian king, and they are all in latin. The few romanian words presumed to be dacian are marked in my dictionary as: "unknown origin, presumed dacian".
There is another theory for this, but it's rather stretched: aparently, Herodotus states somewhere in his works that thracians spoke the same language, with minor variations in local dialects. I couldn't find this quote, but I only had a translation someone posted on the internet years ago, and I didn't have the time to read it all. Then, apparently, Homer stated somewhere in the Illiad that the people of Troy where thracians (I doubt that, too - maybe a someone can enlighten me on the subject) and that a band of refugees from Troy went on and founded Rome. The theory then postulates that latin evolved from the language of the trojans, who were thracians. Dacians were also thracians, so their language must have been extremely close to latin, hence we can't find "pure" dacian words in romanian because we can't distinguish them from latin words. The person who came up with this theory says he found evidence in a diary kept by emperor Trajan's phisician during the dacian campaigns. He says he also found evidence of a book similar to Julius Caesar's "comments" on the gauls, but it remains undiscovered yet.

I gave this lenghty explanation because I found the theory rather interesting (and it goes well with the "north of Danube" one), even if I take it with a grain of salt: the person who came upo with this went on and joined an ultra-nationalistic movement hell bent on denying that romanians had any ties with the Roman Empire.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dr. A. Cula


You know, in some parts of Romania, these words would generate angry lynch mobs faster than you can say them.

I know
I hoped for some angry replies here as well.

There is another theory for this, but it's rather stretched: aparently, Herodotus states somewhere in his works that thracians spoke the same language, with minor variations in local dialects. I couldn't find this quote, but I only had a translation someone posted on the internet years ago, and I didn't have the time to read it all. Then, apparently, Homer stated somewhere in the Illiad that the people of Troy where thracians (I doubt that, too - maybe a someone can enlighten me on the subject) and that a band of refugees from Troy went on and founded Rome. The theory then postulates that latin evolved from the language of the trojans, who were thracians. Dacians were also thracians, so their language must have been extremely close to latin, hence we can't find "pure" dacian words in romanian because we can't distinguish them from latin words. The person who came up with this theory says he found evidence in a diary kept by emperor Trajan's phisician during the dacian campaigns. He says he also found evidence of a book similar to Julius Caesar's "comments" on the gauls, but it remains undiscovered yet.

lovely

I also like the idea of Ovidius as the first Romanian poet

Anyway, the idea of Romanians moving from the other side of Danube is for me the missing explenation of Nestor's words about Poles; Romanians, moving into what now is Romania, pushed poor Poles to the north. But only theorethically, because I have no idea when exactly Romanians moved there.

[Ned]

Could it be that the area was occuppied by Romans and provided a place of refuge for other Romans as the Goths and Slavs moved south?

[Heresson]

But it was NOT occupied by Romans. It could have been a shelter, because of the mountains, but there are other mountains closer to former Romanian settlements.

[Sir Og]

Heresson do you have any idea what happened to the Thracians after the Slavs flooded the Balkans.

All I can remember from history is that Romans (Trajan) conquered Thracia and then a few hundred years later Bulgars come to this land and meet the Slavs. It is not clear what happened to the Thracians in that relatively short period of time.
I can understand various barbarians driving each other from a certain teritory in waves but Thracians were relatively advanced and have been here for centuries and then they just disapear.

[Ned]

So H, Attilla killed them all?

[Heresson]

I don't know, but I believe most/all of them were assimilated into greek- (in the south) and latin (in the south) speaking population already, by that time

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ned
So H, Attilla killed them all?

Attila was no freak, his intention was never to exterminate complete populations, that's so 20th century. Of course, terror was a method to make people more likely to surrender beforehand, but that was not new. Attila has an extremely bad press. There's lots of evidence that Attila's "huns" chenged from purely an altaic/turk-mongol people to a rather interethnic group during their migration from the Chinese border to Europe.
It's not possible to understand the time of barbarian invasions as a history of continuous genocides - that's anachronistic.

[Dr Strangelove]

Attilla was basically a land pirate.

Regarding the idea that Romania was resettled by Latin speakers from south of the Danube - when was this event supposed to have taken place? The area north of the Danube was crawling with Huns and Goths in the 5th century, this would have made a rather poor time to resettle. In the 6th century plagues devastated the Balkans, then the Bulgars grabbed the land south of the Danube presumably wiping out the natives or at least forcing them to adopt the Bulgar language. Finally at some point the peoples of the Byzantine empire reverted to speaking Greek.

The idea that the Romans were related to the Thracians and therefore the two languages evolved in a comparable fashion has some problems. First, Thrace and Romania aren't the same place. Thrace was where Bulgaria is now. Second, is there any proof other than myth that the founders of Rome were descendants of the survivors of the destruction of Troy? I've often thought that the idea that the Romans were descendants of lost Troy was some romantic notion concocted at a time when Greek speaking states largely dominated the Mediterranean area,

[Ecthy]

Of course it is, did anyone claim it's historic fact?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I've often thought that the idea that the Romans were descendants of lost Troy was some romantic notion concocted at a time when Greek speaking states largely dominated the Mediterranean area,

Yup, but Rome WAS influenced by the Etruscans, who may well have come from Asia Minor.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yup, but Rome WAS influenced by the Etruscans, who may well have come from Asia Minor.

Sure they were influenced, but they were definitely a different people.

Also, I don't think that it was claimed that the "Latin speaking settlers on the southern bank of the Danube" were Thracians (or did I misread?). If the theory is correct, it's much more likely that those Latin speaking folks were the population of the border settlements along the river, people who moved there following the legions and local population adopting Latin because of the legions' presence.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Attilla was basically a land pirate.

Regarding the idea that Romania was resettled by Latin speakers from south of the Danube - when was this event supposed to have taken place? The area north of the Danube was crawling with Huns and Goths in the 5th century, this would have made a rather poor time to resettle. In the 6th century plagues devastated the Balkans, then the Bulgars grabbed the land south of the Danube presumably wiping out the natives or at least forcing them to adopt the Bulgar language. Finally at some point the peoples of the Byzantine empire reverted to speaking Greek.

IIRC, the Romans who settled in Dacia fled there as there own provices where being devestated by the barbarians. The exact date might be difficult to tell, but the clue might come from the words they as was stated earlier in this thread.

The Ostrogoths took over the province of Dacia in 271. When later they moved to Italy, circa 480, they must have left vacant land that might have been resettled by Romans refugees/pioneers. This settlement might have then been cut off once more when the Avars or the Slavs moved in. IIRC, again, one of then Emperors invited the Savs South to counter the Avars. The Slavs settled between the Avars and the Empire.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Attilla was basically a land pirate.

Regarding the idea that Romania was resettled by Latin speakers from south of the Danube - when was this event supposed to have taken place? The area north of the Danube was crawling with Huns and Goths in the 5th century, this would have made a rather poor time to resettle. In the 6th century plagues devastated the Balkans, then the Bulgars grabbed the land south of the Danube presumably wiping out the natives or at least forcing them to adopt the Bulgar language. Finally at some point the peoples of the Byzantine empire reverted to speaking Greek.

The idea that the Romans were related to the Thracians and therefore the two languages evolved in a comparable fashion has some problems. First, Thrace and Romania aren't the same place. Thrace was where Bulgaria is now. Second, is there any proof other than myth that the founders of Rome were descendants of the survivors of the destruction of Troy? I've often thought that the idea that the Romans were descendants of lost Troy was some romantic notion concocted at a time when Greek speaking states largely dominated the Mediterranean area,

when did the south of the danube guys go north. Ive always been under the impression it was relatively late. Historically there ARE romance speakers south of the Danube, and all through the balkans, mainly shepherds, who may have come from South Italy at many times during the dark and middle ages (when does a Roman become an Italian?) And then just spread up into Romania. Whether before or after the Magyars got to Transylvania being a point of contention. And probably unknowable, given the lack of documentation. It WAS the dark ages, after all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove The idea that the Romans were related to the Thracians and therefore the two languages evolved in a comparable fashion has some problems. First, Thrace and Romania aren't the same place. Thrace was where Bulgaria is now. Second, is there any proof other than myth that the founders of Rome were descendants of the survivors of the destruction of Troy? I've often thought that the idea that the Romans were descendants of lost Troy was some romantic notion concocted at a time when Greek speaking states largely dominated the Mediterranean area,

The point, IIUC, is not that Thracians moved directly into Romania. Its a counter to the question "if Romanians are Dacians, why arent there Dacian words in Romanian?" The proposed answer is that there ARE Dacian words in Romanian, but theyre invisible, because Latin was itself influenced by a Dacian related language, so the Dacian words in Romanian look like (and in fact ARE) Latin words.